@KurtGodel7 I agree on not allowing Heavy Tanks a blitz move, I didn’t give it to them in my mod either. But the Medium not having it strikes me as a mistake.

If the only unit in your game that can blitz is a 1 defense light tank, then blitzing is hardly even a useful ability to have at all - they just get left exposed and easily destroyed by a counterattack on your opponent’s turns. Even one lone infantryman has a 50/50 shot at killing the light tank.

Infantry + Field Gun attacks at a 2 + 2 and defends at 3 +2 , while Infantry + Light Tank attacks at 2 + 1 and defends at 2 + 1. So the Light Tank is a loser both on offense and defense vs the Field Gun, and the extra speed isn’t making up for it if the unit is too weak to do anything once it has to fight. The only units a Light Tank can attack with an advantage at all are an unsupported AT Gun or another Light Tank.

If you think the Light Tank ends up too strong from my proposal, you could nerf it by giving the AT Gun that debuff bonus against it as well (but you could balance it making tanks and AT guns debuff enemy light tanks on a 1:1 basis, since the AT gun will be a common filler unit).

@Vendetta said:

@KurtGodel7 Yes, I recalled the MP division and that does put a cap on infantry production. I thought there was a chart somewhere in the thread that listed the starting MP/PU income rates for the different powers but I'm having trouble finding it again. That will be helpful to see again to figure out roughly what each power can buy per turn.

If I take your word that 1 MP should be treated as worth 2 PU, then we can compute 1 Infantry + 1 Field Gun as being equivalent in purchase value to 1 Tank.

In a 1 vs 1 + 1 matchup, the battle odds are pretty even - the tank has a good chance of winning if it manages to score a hit on its first roll. If it misses the first shot, it usually gets killed.

However, because of your sticky hits rule, the more you scale this up, the more likely the tanks are to lose because they don't get to spread hits out among themselves to preserve their firepower. In a battle of 5 Tanks against 5 Infantry + 5 Field Guns, the infantry and artillery win 70% of the time when they're attacking, and 84% of the time when they're defending.

The Medium Tank would probably become more viable at a price of 7 PU, or if it had its attack stat raised to 4 while defense was left at 3.

The Light Tank is in desperate need of way to justify its existence, and I think I've come up with a solution for that.

Keep the price at 5 PU, and and raise its default stats to 3 Attack / 2 Defense. However, give the Medium Tank (and the Heavy, Panther, King Tiger, etc) all a trait that causes enemy light tanks to drop by 1 attack or defense if they fight each other (to the 2/1 value they currently have).

Now the Light Tank can actually be dangerous against infantry that doesn't have heavy armor support, but when it does run into real tanks, it turns into fodder.

This gives Italy and Japan a reason to actually buy them, while still giving them a reason to want to unlock the Medium Tank as a replacement.

I will mull your idea over.

Generally speaking, I believe that mobility should come at a price. Not an exorbitant price, but a price nonetheless. If more mobile units had the same raw combat power as slow, plodding units, players would be foolish to choose the slow, plodding units.

Take Japan for example. It has a very good unit mix for what it needs to do in China. It builds infantry and anti-tank guns for its cannon fodder. Field guns to provide some spice on attack. Heavy guns if it needs to defend something. Light tanks if it wants to mix offensive firepower with mobility. A light tank costs the same as a field gun, and they both have the same attack value. The light tank doesn't provide support, the field gun does. Offsetting that is the fact that the light tank gives you more mobility. I believe the field gun and the light tank are somewhat reasonably priced relative to each other.

There's tech which improves the field gun. Working women reduces its cost to 4. Creeping barrage increases its attack to 3. You could make the argument that if the field gun has these technological improvements in store for it, why not have something good under the Christmas tree for the light tank? During the actual war light tank designs certainly improved, so that could be added to the game as a technology to research.

At a cost of 5 and an attack of 2, a light tank gives you 0.4 attack per PU spent. Whereas a medium tank costs 8 and has an attack of 3, giving you 0.375 attack per PU spent. The medium tank gives you more hitpoints for the money than a light tank, as well as more defensive firepower for the money. But the light tank has an edge--however slight--for offense for the money.

Also the light tank is the only unit in the game which can blitz. I'm not necessarily wedded to this idea. The thinking behind it is this: during the air phase, it's very easy for Germany to can opener against the Soviet Union. After the can opener, I didn't want some random Soviet stack to be hit hard by German tanks. If Germany wants to hit the Soviet stack with light tanks only, okay fine, whatever. I can live with that. But, it's possible my concerns in this area could be overblown.

The Soviet Union has a tech called "simplify the T-34" which reduces the cost of Soviet tanks by 1 PU. Other than that, I haven't handed out any cost reductions for tanks. One thing to be careful of is this: I don't want tanks to become cost competitive with anti-tank guns for hitpoints for the money. A player should get more cannon fodder for the money with a slow, plodding unit than with a more mobile unit like the tank. Britain's Comet tech allows British tanks to attack and defend on a 4. I sort of want to keep that unique to Britain, in recognition of the fact that its late war medium tanks were harder-hitting than other nations' medium tanks.

Whatever chart I gave earlier is probably obsolete by now. Here is a new one, describing incomes.

Germany: 148 PUs, 16 MPs
USSR: 210 PUs, 28 MPs
Japan: 89 PUs, 8 MPs
U.K. 95 PUs, 4 MPs
Italy 35 PUs 6 MPs
China 25 PUs 11 MPs
America Pacific 101 PUs, 4 MPs
America Atlantic 136 PUs, 10 MPs

Bear in mind that the Allies except for China receive an early game nerf to income. The nerf goes away rather quickly for the U.S.S.R. and Britain, and the nerf lasts the longest for America Atlantic. The above table lists nations at their full income values, while ignoring any early game income nerfs.

Also, those numbers understate the infantry/conscript production for Britain and the Soviet Union. Britain can research techs to give it free infantry each turn for Canada and Australia. Free colonial militia each turn for India. This maxes out at 8 free infantry or colonial militia per turn, 6 of which are for India.

The Soviet Union's conscription tech maxes out at Conscription 4. Conscription 4 generates 20 free conscripts per turn for the Soviet Union, over and above the 28 it can buy with its PUs. In order to get the full 20 bonus conscripts each turn, the Soviet Union would need to hold all five of Moscow, Stalingrad, Gorky, Sverdiovsk, and Chelyabinsk. Each one lost removes 20% of the bonus. Operation Barbarossa is expected to reduce the Soviet MP income by about 7, from 28 down to 21.

The Soviet plan is basically to have huge numbers of conscripts, and then to combine them with tanks, field guns, and heavy guns to enhance their firepower. The Red Army is very fierce on this map.

Germany has some advantages also. At least initially it has air superiority over its eastern front. It can thin Soviet ranks a little by using dive bombers. The Soviets need to research some piston tech to realistically challenge Germany over the sky. Late game, Germany will have Speer's Industrialization. This causes German SPCs to produce a free Panther every other turn, in addition to their normal production. Germany's King Tiger tank is the best tank in the game--significantly better than the Soviet Union's IS-2. The assault rifle and Panzerfaust techs improve the quality of German Strumtruppen.

@KurtGodel7 said:

Only China, the U.S.S.R., and Italy can buy conscripts.

I get that the conscript is just a label to identify particularly poorly trained, paid and/or equipped troops in general, but the word "conscript" itself just identifies everyone who has been forced to serve in the armed forces, meaning someone who is in the armed forces but has not voluntarily joined the armed forces (as a volunteer, professional, mercenary, contract...).

Asking the Google AI "During World War 2, what percentage of men from the United Kingdom itself who were serving in the British Army were conscripts?" (I'm trying to exclude the Indians and such, but I don't know if that did it.), the answer is

During World War II, conscripts made up approximately 80% of the men serving in the British Army.

For "During World War 2, what percentage of men who were serving in the United States Army were conscripts?", the answer is

During World War II, approximately 61% to 66% of all men who served in the United States Army were conscripts (draftees).

For "During World War 2, what percentage of men who were serving in the Japanese Army were conscripts?", the answer is

During World War II, approximately 90% of the men serving in the Imperial Japanese Army were conscripts.

Now, as I'm not sure exactly what a conscript is meant to be in your game, I'm not sure what would be a better word for it. I'm just saying "conscript" is not quite that word.

(I know this might sound like quibbling: if you want to call them conscripts, it's fine. As I said, I don't actually have a better word to suggest you.)

Also, I'm not sure if the German bodenständige Divisionen would fit into your idea of "conscripts" (guess not but just checking).

@KurtGodel7 Yes, I recalled the MP division and that does put a cap on infantry production. I thought there was a chart somewhere in the thread that listed the starting MP/PU income rates for the different powers but I'm having trouble finding it again. That will be helpful to see again to figure out roughly what each power can buy per turn.

If I take your word that 1 MP should be treated as worth 2 PU, then we can compute 1 Infantry + 1 Field Gun as being equivalent in purchase value to 1 Tank.

In a 1 vs 1 + 1 matchup, the battle odds are pretty even - the tank has a good chance of winning if it manages to score a hit on its first roll. If it misses the first shot, it usually gets killed.

However, because of your sticky hits rule, the more you scale this up, the more likely the tanks are to lose because they don't get to spread hits out among themselves to preserve their firepower. In a battle of 5 Tanks against 5 Infantry + 5 Field Guns, the infantry and artillery win 70% of the time when they're attacking, and 84% of the time when they're defending.

The Medium Tank would probably become more viable at a price of 7 PU, or if it had its attack stat raised to 4 while defense was left at 3.

The Light Tank is in desperate need of way to justify its existence, and I think I've come up with a solution for that.

Keep the price at 5 PU, and and raise its default stats to 3 Attack / 2 Defense. However, give the Medium Tank (and the Heavy, Panther, King Tiger, etc) all a trait that causes enemy light tanks to drop by 1 attack or defense if they fight each other (to the 2/1 value they currently have).

Now the Light Tank can actually be dangerous against infantry that doesn't have heavy armor support, but when it does run into real tanks, it turns into fodder.

This gives Italy and Japan a reason to actually buy them, while still giving them a reason to want to unlock the Medium Tank as a replacement.